9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d law in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 70,09,07,491/- imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in fact and in law in cancelling the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) on account of excess deduction claimed in terms of provision of section u/s. 80IAB(10) read with section 80IAB(3) of the Act to the tune of Rs. 206.20 crores for making exaggerated and unreasonable claim of benefit under the Act." 2. The brief facts of the case are that for the year under consideration the assessee claimed deduction u/s. 80IAB to the tune of Rs. 858,74,99,121/- being the income from development of Special Economic Zone. The AO rejected the claim observing that this consideration is only a pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 271(l)(c) of the Act is devoid of merits and deserves to be cancelled. 7. Furthermore, on the merits of the case, it is revealed that on identical facts, wherein the Order of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the A. Y. 2008-09 deleting the entire addition, was available with the Assessing Officer, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act had not been imposed. The Assessing Officer, considering the facts of the case ought to have exercised her jurisdiction u/s 275(1)(a) of the Act, and instead of levying the penalty and creating a huge demand, should have kept the penalty proceedings in abeyance, as she herself had not imposed the penalty on identical facts in the A. Y. 2008-09. This view draws support from the decisions of the H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A) was not justified in cancelling the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) on account of excess deduction claimed in terms of provision of section u/s. 80IAB(10) read with section 80IAB(3) of the Act to the tune of Rs. 206.20 crores for making excess claim of deduction. 4. On the other hand, the ld. AR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A). 5. Having considered the rival submissions in the light of material available on record, we find no justification to interfere with the impugned order. It is notable that the addition, on the basis of which the impugned penalty has been imposed, observing inaccurate particulars of income furnished by the assessee, has been deleted by the Tribunal, as also observed by the ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order reprodu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
